Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Validating the Second Amendment

An over-reaching government
An over-reaching government

Does anyone still doubt why the Founding Father gave us the Second Amendment in the Constitution of the United States? Do the idiots wishing to disarm America by doing away with an armed citizenry ever use their brain other than to keep their ears from flapping together? Is not the example of the Bureau of Land Management's recent stand-off with Cliven Bundy and the armed cattle ranchers in Nevada enough proof to show what would be the fate of every American were not the public formidably armed and determined to stand up to a never ending over-reach of the Federal Government?

The Founding Fathers were wise beyond those today who haven't the sense God gave a goose. Their experience with the tyrannical dictates of the governments of Europe and elsewhere enabled an insight that no matter how good the intentions of man to develop a government based on the inalienable rights granted by our Creator, of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the only guarantee to insure liberty and freedom was by having an armed citizenry.

"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security." Thomas Jefferson

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." George Washington

"Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature and have been carried to so great lengths as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon the inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves. It is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression." Sir William Blackstone

Let's move forward to the thoughts and intentions of those who would take away the rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Please feel free to read between the lines as to the hidden agenda and send me your comments.

Robert Parry, who I believe is one who has given much thought to be against the rights of the citizen to be armed, though totally naïve about the history of what has occurred in countries where the citizens were disarmed, kind of sums it up for those who wish to take away our rights to protect our families from criminals and potentially a government which would then be without restraint…

"So, the Second Amendment read: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Contrary to some current right-wing fantasies about the Framers wanting to encourage popular uprisings over grievances, the language of the amendment is clearly aimed at maintaining order within the country."

He goes on wrongly to conclude, "So, it would be counterintuitive – as well as anti-historical – to believe that Madison and Washington wanted to arm the population so the discontented could resist the constitutionally elected government. In reality, the Framers wanted to arm the people – at least the white males – so uprisings, whether economic clashes like Shays’ Rebellion, anti-tax protests like the Whiskey Rebellion, attacks by Native Americans or slave revolts, could be repulsed."

Liberals miss the point entirely trying to pin their objection to the Second Amendment by arguing the actual wording of allowing an armed citizenry was only about a militia but that being armed would enable the public to also allow an armed insurrection of the population. If one studies the Federalist Papers and individual speeches of the Founding Fathers one should be able to easily understand the intent of the Second Amendment when the Constitution was adopted. For those with a single digit IQ , I'll try to enlighten you with the Founding Father's own words:

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison, Federalist Papers

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788 regarding the history of governments.

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

Beyond the words of the Founding Fathers and upheld every time liberals chose to challenge the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has validated the citizens right to keep and bear arms.

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms." Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840

"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. [...] To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment

The argument for the Second Amendment is based on the same logic that putting locks on doors can only be seen as a deterrent to thieves; having an armed society for the same reason is a deterrent to a tyrannically minded government. Tyrants usually figure it out. People say Hitler outlawed guns, but in reality the 1938 German Weapons Act actually loosened gun ownership rules for non-Jewish Germans, however, the law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns which probably was a reason there was so little resistance when the Nazis embarked upon the Holocaust.

To any thinking person, it is obvious that an armed citizenry is far safer from criminals than an unarmed population, when it comes to crime. Kennesaw, Georgia is a prime example. In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition. The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants."

Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone went crazy. "People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes", he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case." In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge. Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide.

Also one only has to see the facts which are blatantly presented every time there is a mass shooting incident. The shooter goes on a rampage… even if the shooter has obtained his weapon legally, he is only stopped when someone shows up with a gun. The chaos generally continues until the perpetrator is shot. It is also obvious to anyone with at least one eye, that the mass shootings more often than not, occur in Gun-Free Zones (schools, movie theaters, and other public places with posted "no guns permitted" signs). Even military bases, where we see soldiers who are trained in the use of firearms, maniacs with guns have the freedom to wreck their havoc on those in the best position to put a halt to it if they were allowed to be armed.

It is a fact that when guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns. Do laws against bank robbery deter the bank robber? Do laws against driving over 65 mph deter drivers from driving 75 mph? And does the international law against human trafficking, prevent the imprisonment and forced prostitution of children? We have immigration laws that prohibit people from entering the country without legal passports and visas, and we even have border fences to deter those from entering our country illegally, yet we have more than 30 million people wandering around our country will little regard by our government.

Ask yourself, what is the purpose behind the liberal's intent to take guns away from law abiding citizens?

Senator Diane Feinstein told CBS’s 60 Minutes that upon seeing her Clinton gun ban enacted in 1994, she said: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it.” However, like all liberal politicians, their statements apply to everyone BUT themselves…

In speaking to the Associated Press on November 18, 1993, Feinstein stated that: “Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe”, referring to a time when she believed she was the target of a terrorist group. She expressed a very different viewpoint to colleagues, “I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself, because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I’d walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.”

Another fool is the former mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, who basically banned carrying of handguns by law abiding citizens for self defense in his city. Of course the NYC criminal element has no trouble completely ignoring these restrictions, and gun violence is worse than most other U.S. large cities, showing that when seconds count in defending oneself against violence and police response time is measured in minutes, everyone should have a right to protect himself and his family by carrying a gun. The fact is, the ten largest cities in American with the highest gun murder rate are run by liberal Democrats!

It is frightening to have witnessed the over-reach of government in Clark County, Nevada last week. I am not here to weigh in whether Mr. Bundy and his family paid for the right to graze their cattle (he has cancelled checks to show he paid fees to the state of Nevada by the way) on the land in question. My objection is to the government's use of tactics that we find in tyrannical governments, and were it not for the armed citizens who came to confront the government, we would hopelessly have watched the confiscation of a citizen's property (the cattle), bankrupt a citizen's business (Mr. Bundy's ranch), imprison his family, and possibly done great bodily harm when the Bundy family resisted.

Report this ad